Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review

The EOS-1D X Mark II is Canon’s newest flagship DSLR aimed at pro-level photographers. A quick glance reveals the camera’s 1D-series heritage, but under the hood there are some exciting upgrades going on. The 1D X II is built around a new 20.2MP full-frame CMOS sensor, now with Canon’s Dual Pixel autofocus system, includes an expanded 61-point autofocus system with 24% more coverage and a 360,000-pixel RGB+IR metering sensor, and is one of the first Canon DSLRs (other than the somewhat niche 1D C) that captures 4K video. Predictably, it’s also built like a brick and performs like a Formula 1 race car.

Canon 1D X Mark II Key Specifications

New 20.2MP CMOS full-frame sensor with Dual Pixel autofocus

14 fps continuous shooting (16 fps in live view)

200+ shot buffer with Raw+JPEG (CFast 2.0)

61-point AF system with 41 cross-type sensors and 24% more coverage

360,000-pixel RGB+IR metering sensor

Native ISO from 100-51,200 (expandable to 50-409,600)

4K/60p video in DCI format (4096 x 2160 pixels) using Motion JPEG

1.62 million dot LCD touch screen

Flicker detection

CFast 2.0 card support

USB 3.0

The 1D X Mark II is a camera that anyone with previous 1D series experience can probably pick up, dial in their favorite settings, and start shooting right away — though as we'll see on the following pages, in doing so one might overlook advancements that Canon has made in this newest edition. There are a few minor tweaks to the body - all for the better in our opinion - and it takes very little effort to adapt. This conservative approach to design is a testament to the fact that the basic form factor works well. It’s no surprise that the designs of both the Canon 1D and Nixon Dx series are quite similar and haven’t seen many changes to the basic design over the years.

Conservative changes to the body notwithstanding, the 1D X II is full of new and updated technology designed to make the camera one of the top performing models in the world. The new AF system, although still utilizing 61 AF points, now covers 24% more of the frame and is, predictably, extremely fast. There’s also a new 360,000-pixel RGB+IR sensor for face recognition and subject tracking, which Canon refers to as iTR (Intelligent Tracking and Recognition).

The jump to 20MP (vs. the 1D X’s 18MP) isn’t exactly Earth shattering, but this is a completely different sensor than any found in Canon's previous flagship models. The 1D X II is the first full frame EOS DSLR to include Canon's Dual Pixel autofocus system, a feature we've praised on other cameras. Additionally, Canon has moved to a design that uses on-chip analog to-digital-conversion, which should result in improved dynamic range of the sensor.

Compared to the Nikon D5

The obvious point of comparison to the 1D X II is the Nikon D5. A quick comparison reveals a lot of similarities and a few differences. On the surface it appears that Nikon takes the prize for high ISO and AF specs, while the 1D X II wins on continuous shooting speed and video. On the following pages we'll try to give you a sense of how they stack up in the real world.

Canon EOS-1D X II

Canon EOS-1D X

Nikon D5

MSRP

$5999

$6800

$6499

Sensor

20.2MP

18.1 MP

20.8MP

ISO range(expanded)

100 - 51,200(50 - 409,600)

100 - 51,200(50 - 204,800)

100 - 102,400(50 - 3,280,000)

Viewfinder spec

0.76x mag100% coverage20mm eyepoint

0.76x mag100% coverage20mm eyepoint

0.72x mag100% coverage17mm eyepoint

AF points

61 (41 cross-type)

61 (41 cross-type)

153 (99 cross-type)

Live view/video AF

'Dual Pixel' phase detection

Contrast detection

Contrast detection

AF working range

-3 – 18 EV

-2 – 18 EV

-4 – 20 EV

RGB metering sensor resolution

360k pixels

100k pixels

180k pixels

LCD

3.2" 1.62M-dot touch-enabled

3.0" 1.04m dot

3.2" 2.36M-dot touch-enabled

Burst rate

14 fps(16 with mirror up)

12 fps

12 fps(14 with mirror up)

BufferJPEG / Raw / Raw+JPEG

Unlimited

170

81

180

38

17

Unlimited

200

200

Video

DCI 4K/60p

1080/60p

UHD 4K/30p

HDMI Out

1080 8-bit 4:2:2

1080 8-bit 4:2:2

4K/30 8-bit 4:2:2

Headphone socket?

Yes

No

Yes

Card format

1x Compact Flash1x CFast

2x Compact Flash

2x Compact Flash or 2x XQD variants

Battery life (CIPA)

1210 shots

1120 shots

3780 shots

Dimensions

158 x 168 x 83mm

158 x 164 x 83mm

160 x 159 x 92mm

Weight

1530 g

1530 g

1405 g (XQD)

We doubt that many people are going to seriously contemplate a switch between Canon and Nikon over a few specs on one model or the other unless it's something absolutely mission critical. Most shooters utilizing this type of camera are likely heavily invested into a system, including lenses, strobes, and even institutional support. At the same time, it's instructive to see just how advanced both flagship models are getting. We expect that most pros or advanced amateurs could produce great results with either one.

Although not nearly as useful as the "change the crop mode on the fly while you are shooting" that NIkon has had for years, That's the feature I miss the most from my D3S shooting days. Of course if I was just shooting a bowl of fruit instead of fast moving targets both near and far from a fixed position then I could always just learn how to compose.

Forget about "M mode". Call it whichever way you like, but, basically, it's when you control aperture and shutter speed, but use auto ISO. Canon cameras, since a 1DX firmware update a few years ago, let you apply exposure compensation in such a situation. As the reviewers rightly pointed out, it would make sense to have the option, on the 1DX II (and the original 1DX for that matter, since it's the first one that introduced that possibility to Canon cameras), to enable the exposure compensation button to be used in these circumstances (again : user-controlled aperture and shutter speed, with auto ISO).

The reviewers have nothing to learn in that regard. Canon, on the other hand...

As the review points out, this would mobilise the "SET" button for a function that could be seen, by some users, as more appropriately assigned the the existing exposure compensation button, while freeing the SET button for something else.

What MayaTlab0 said. I assign the SET button to Magnify the AF point at 100% in Image Playback/Review so I can instantly check focus with one hand (my right hand, which can't access the 'magnify' button on the left).

It makes little sense to have a +/- button dedicated to EC on a camera, that suddenly becomes literally useless in M mode if you use the back jog dial for aperture (which most Canon users I know do). In other words, switching that +/- button from EC in P/A/S modes to aperture in M mode just because of the few that turn off the rear jog dial (and render a pro camera into a single dial camera...) isn't very sensible for the vast majority (in our understanding, anyway) that do use the rear jog dial just fine for aperture control.

It'd help if Canon stopped limiting the set of assignable functions per button. At least then one could assign one of the other buttons to EC or Magnify, but as it is the SET button is the only button that can be assigned to either of those.

I'm looking for a high end camera to record the Second Coming in all its glory, action, majesty, color, etc. Might hafta pass on this one. I think I'll look into Seitz Roundshot or maybe Alpa or even Mamiya-Leaf... money is no object.

1) The laundry list of things that will slow down the FPS (2 entire pages in the manual dedicated to scenarios where you won't get advertised FPS)

2) The AF is only -3.0EV sensitive at the center point in single shot mode, where few people use it. It drops to -2.0 for tracking scenarios, which is half as sensitive as the competition in the middle and one third as sensitive on all other points.

3) 1DX batteries do not allow for advertised FPS - you cannot re-use your old 1DX batteries without crippling the camera

Those are important pieces of info for perspective buyers IMHO. Otherwise great review.

@ rrccad I am currently cross shopping both brands. Canon has caused me enormous grief over the last year, no doubt, with the well documented 7D2 AF issues and 1DX mirror box/oil issues. Got to vent about it somewhere haha. I am taking a very close look at the latest cameras from both camps to decide where I want to be for the next couple years. My lens collection allows me to not be tied down to any one brand, I always just pick what works best for me personally. Sorry if I offended.

Alright it looks like "crippled" was a poor choice of words. I just meant to say that it reduces advertised performance. Everyone can relax now. It is a concern for me because of how many 1DX batteries I have. The list of things that reduces FPS on the 1DX II though is quite surprising. Canon makes it sound like all the stars have to align just right to hit 14 FPS so hopefully it's better in practice.

I shoot mostly JPG's, and usually to fast CF cards. Given that the high ISO is so superb I'm usually shooting at shutter speeds of at least 1/800 even indoors. With those parameters I rarely if ever see anything below 14fps. I have 300,000 clicks on my 1DX2 so far.

Also, I think 14fps is really pushing the boundaries on what is possible with a dSLR. I think you have to get rid of the mirror to improve on that. It took Nikon 4 years just to catch up with the 1DX's 12 fps. And 10fps was the gold standard for a long long time before that.

I have 5 1DX batteries and a bunch of Mark IV batteries as well. I would have rather not purchased another 1DX2 battery too but the 1DX2 battery last up to 8-9 times what the CIPA tests rated them, and you really only need 2 to shoot 14fps all day long.

What does CIPA (battery life) mean? Last weekend I shot 2942 photos ( a complete 64 GB card plus another 64 GB backup card, dual RAW) with my 1DX and a 300m f2.8 IS, which needs more power than a smaller lens. After there was no space left on my cards, the battery was still more than 50 % charged. 1210 shots is ridiculous, unless you review every photo for 30 seconds on the LCD.

CIPA stands for the Camera and Imaging Products Association, a trade group that includes camera manufacturers. A few years ago they agreed on a set of standards for measuring battery life in cameras so that consumers would be able to make an apples-to-apples comparison of battery life between cameras. The tests don't necessarily reflect how any given person will use the camera, however, so your experience may differ from the CIPA standard.

No, iTR lags behind 3D Tracking. That's different than "AF accuracy". And they noted how the 1DX2 dynamic range is better than the D5. These offsetting issues are probably why the cameras have the same overall score of 89%. There's no conspiracy to be found here, obviously.

I see tracking being about predicting the motion of a subject in the targeted AF point(s). Dynamic / 3D / iTR I see as interpreting a scene as to where to place the AF point(s) - e.g. on a face or eyes. Two different facets entirely.

Nikon's newest AF implementation has eliminated the lag that used to be in older bodies when you initiated focus. It just rips into action, and in 3D mode seems a bit "smarter" than iTR.

However, while good, neither 3D or iTR are not modes I'd trust in critical situations today - the traditional dynamic modes give more consistent results but require skill keeping the AF points on my subjects.

One area that the D5 lags the 1DXII is the number of autofocus points at f/8 equivalent - 15 total, 5 cross (Nikon) versus 61 total, 27 cross (Canon) - which is a huge deal for those using teleconverters; e.g. 80-400 VR or 100-400 L lens + 1.4X.

Important is quick mode switching and I find the 1DXII easier to do so through its better custom settings system.

2. The reviews of the Nikon D5 and, now, of the 1DXII are a model of impartiality, professionalism and sheer technical and journalistic competence.

As an intelligent person and even admitting you're not in a position to recognize or agree with the former contention, surely you're able to see how it can co-exist with the later assertion, how there's no reason they would necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

@mchungThat is a nice feature on the Canon, but one can also argue that the Nikon has -4 EV in center point and -3 on the others, while Canon is -3 and -2 respectively so the Nikon will perform better in lower light situations...sport arenas, gymnasiums, event photography, or early morning late afternoon.I guess horses for courses.

The goal is to capture the action of the bull trying to throw away the rider.

The image must therefore show the bull rearing or bucking. The worse of the 3 shots in this regard is the one where the bull has all legs pretty much touching the ground , showing the less dynamic of the action. That's the middle one which Dpreview call "just right" (in facr as far as capturing the bull's motions it is "just wrong"). The last shot is nearly as bad but for different reasons, I'll add the poor rider's pose to Dpreview's comments. The first one is the best, too bad about the rider's hand. But none is a keeper.

Wow, a tough critic telling you what you must capture and what the goal must be and what the image must show. With such strict rules, everything is wrong. Nevertheless, the "just right" image is still the best *of those three* for the reasons stated in the review. I'm sure you took more the 3 photos at this rodeo, so I have no worry about showing the bull rearing or bucking in other photos. For showing the advantage of 14fps, these 3 photos were fine.

@Yake - exactly. They're not my favorite images, but they illustrate a point - and that was the point :)

@ TOF - FWIW, there's a lot more to look at in the full samples gallery and on the subsequent 'Rodeo' experience page, but I doubt very much if they'll hold up to such stringent critique. Meh. I still had fun shooting them, I still like them, and they were a fantastic means to understanding much more about this camera than I could by just reading the manual.

Albert, are you asking about the difference between the 1D X II and the D5? If so, there is a difference in battery life, both in the CIPA standard (which measures cameras the same way) and in real world experience. From a practical standpoint you'll likely get much more than the CIPA standard on both of them

I can't imagine how the test came up with 1210. I've gotten near 10,000 shots on a single charge. The least I've gotten is around 4000. Same with the Nikon shooters I know, they get similar numbers. In my experience the test is flawed nothing to do with real world battery use.

Maxnimo, no doubt this is an American perspective, but if I'm worried about the activities of wild animals and want something to save my life, I will bring along not any of my cameras, but instead my Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Magnum!

(Corollary: when the s^*% hits the fan, a Canon is no substitute for a cannon.)

Yes, it does. A Foveon sensor records different wavelengths at different depths of the sensor substrate, which is how it distinguishes between different colors. There is no color filter, and no light is "discarded", which is why you get full color information at every photo site.

A Bayer sensor makes the color distinction before the light even reaches the sensor; only certain wavelengths are let through the filter at any given photo site, while the rest goes to waste.

Edit: Of course, the light that is recorded by the middle and bottom layer of the Foveon sensor will have lost some energy on its way down, so in that sense some light is lost. But it does get recorded, whereas in a Bayer sensor part of the light is blocked by the filter and isn't recorded at all.

All your comment says is that you've not looked at low ISO raws shot with the Quattro.

Right, starting with a good raw, medium format--say the Pentax 645 Z, also looks very good at low ISOs. And that Pentax can be used at much higher ISOs than the Quattros. The Pentax is also 8 times the price of the Sigma. Then to get better lenses like Schneider or Leica, you'll add to the body+lens cost.

And I'm basing those words on images that I've shot and that others have shot, you know reality. In some cases these are images (raws) you can download and extract yourself.

Why on earth would you try the "words are just words" line, do you not know how silly that sounds? I did use the word "images".

Now, absolutely, the best Sigma lenses don't compete with Leica S and Schneider lenses for the medium format PhaseOne bodies. But the Quattro sensor does compete with that 50MP Sony sensor used by Pentax, PhaseOne and Hasselblad.

Canon appears to have increased low ISO DR by reducing downstream read noise and I can't think of any way that this would have an impact on high ISO DR. (Hence the 1D X II is better in both respects than the 1D X was).

As I understand it, it's the high-speed readout demands that might limit high ISO performance, which is a totally different balancing act.

Great job with getting this review done and on time. I don't personally ever use any review from any site to make purchasing decisions for my gear, but I know others do, and this will be very helpful. There is a wide demographic that actually buys the 1D bodies. While most are probably wildlife and sports shooters, I see quite a few being lugged around cities and national parks as family vacation cameras and landscape photography cameras.

I've never even held a 1D camera, even though I have been shooting Canon for over 20 years. Thus I am not qualified to praise or complain about the camera or the review itself.

Kiril, it's a fair question. What I can tell you from my experience is that the photos I took with faces using live view always seemed to have the eyes in focus. I wouldn't be surprised if the face-detect algorithm is able to identify the eyes and preferentially focus on them, but the camera doesn't specifically highlight the eye(s) while shooting.

Can confirm what Dale said - for the most part, focuses on the plane of cheeks/eyes. If face is slightly turned, it focuses on the front eye. Not sure if it's eye detection or just smart face detection but - it just works.

For full disclosure: this is with 35/1.4 and 85/1.8. 85/1.2 may be a beast though, and you may wish to opt for spot AF, and make sure your lens is microadjusted (and that the point you're using isn't too far off from the point you used for microadjustment).

I assume that micro adjustment does not really matter when using liveview.

If not too much to ask can you also clarify the servo AF functionality in live view mode. The review says "Unfortunately, focus locks as soon as you hit the shutter, so you cannot track a moving subject, or get continuous AF during bursts. A shame, given how good Dual Pixel is at subject tracking.". So no servo AF in live view at all? or is there tracking until the first shot i.e. no tracking during bursts?

Interesting that at the very highest end, Canon seems like the better all-around camera than the Nikon D5, which seems to be a much more specialized device. That's not something that seems to hold true for the lower price brackets, where I would tend to pick the Nikon option for (what I think) is a more useful balance of resolution, ISO, DR, and AF performance.

But on the other hand, this may not hold true if your primary concern - across a wide variety of shooting scenarios - is AF. For example: subject tracking, which is more generally useful (as well as useful for specialized cases), is far better on the Nikon D5. Furthermore, just all-around, we were more impressed with the versatility and adaptability of the D5's AF system over the 1D X II's (even without individual customization).

That said, the 1D X II is still very, very good - especially when you consider it's autofocusing at 14 fps. And Dual-Pixel is in another class entirely compared to Nikon's Live View AF.

The ISO of performance of the D5 is about one stop better than this Canon, I say this having tried both.

And this has nothing to do with how high the dials go. ISO 40k is about it with the Canon, and ISO 80k is about it with the Nikon. (The Canon has the fault of not allowing 1/3 EVF stops above ISO 50k.)

@ nokinonacynon - where do you get that idea? Check out BIll Claff's charts, high ISO performance on the D5 is objectively better regardless of what it's maximum is. AF points are only a one part of the equation - when tracking action, the D5 is twice as sensitive in the center and 3 times as sensitive at outer points. It is an all new system rather than a revised one. Can you point me to objective evidence that supports what you're saying? I am cross shopping both cameras and I find that very hard to believe and I'm sure DPreview would disagree with you as well.

The AF testing is a joke. Absolute conclusions made from subjective feel. Apparently the testers can discern milliseconds without equipment. Success rates for AF depend on many variables, none of which are kept constant in the tests. Not saying such "tests" are not useful. But to make definitive and sweeping conclusions from these? High iso is measurable for sure. Certainly more objective with controlled tests.

@nokinonacynos - why would I ever need to discern milliseconds? If that's what you want, then there's plenty of other sites that point cameras at static objects and test AF acquisition speed. IMO, that's pretty useless, since it seems like every new camera that comes out has the 'world's fastest AF' with that testing methodology (Fuji has claimed this, for example, and while I love Fuji cameras, they do not perform like a 1D X II).

It may not be as controlled, but I get a lot more from reading (and writing) real-world accounts of how the system performs. In this case, I can measure the effectiveness of a system by its behavior, and my keeper rate - not from some objective measure of the milliseconds of difference in AF acquisition speed compared with whatever other camera.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for more controlled tests (and we're still working on getting one implemented). I do think that calling extensive real-world testing a 'joke' is...well, a joke.

My point is simple. These modern AF systems are damn good. I have tried both Canon and Nikon. Sometimes one seems better than the other in terms of keeper rates. But I cannot in all honesty say one is definitely better than the other. I can only make observations on how each feels.

There are no websites I know of that measures AF performance in a controlled environment. AF performance is one of the hardest thing to measure due to the variables involved. This is the only website that makes definitive and absolute conclusions on whether one is better than the other based on so called "tests". Even Phil Askey never made such claims when he owned the site. He knew there were just too many variables. All I can say is thank goodness Rishi wasn't involved in this one or else we would hear of all his degrees from Ivy Leagues when his credibility is challenged.

I agree, the AF systems on top- end DSLRs are so good that fair comparison is almost impossible. Sure one system will give a few more keepers in a particular scenario but quite likely less in another. The 3D tracking iTR features are a bit of a mystery to me, kind of like the AF 'green square mode' on a $6k camera. Battery life is a standardised measure-maybe it involves a certain amount of weighting toward the highest resolution vide mode. Thats gonna suck your battery hard on a 1dxII if it specifies say 10 minutes of 4K 60p video. Also GPS is a major power drain on the 7DII which I always turn off-maybeCIPA leave that on too, My 1DXII took over 3000 shots with half the charge left when I first got it (and that included a lot of menu studying). Since then I've just concluded it's more than good enough.

Canon has released new firmware for its EOS-1D X Mark II professional DSLR, which improves USB communication, increases the maximum shutter release cycles number and, of course, fixes miscellaneous bugs. Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.